There has been much reaction to Brewer's decision, both positive and negative. It took quite a bit of moral courage to take the course of action that she did, as State Governor given the fallout from some segments of the Republican party and its largely conservative constituency.

I quite like the analysis of Brewer's actions written by Hendrik Herzberg of the New Yorker.

It was obvious almost from the evening of Friday, February 21st, the day that the Arizona Senate passed Bill 1062 (“An Act Relating to the Free Exercise of Religion”), that Governor Jan Brewer would veto it whether she wanted to or not. Mitt Romney told her to; more important, so did locally influential fellow-Republicans like the state’s two U.S. senators, McCain and Flake. The “business community,” from groovy GoDaddy to Mormon Marriott, recoiled in such horror that you’d think the bill would also have raised the top marginal tax rate. When the N.F.L. strongly suggested that a new venue would have to be found for Super Bowl XLIX, the bill, already in the I.C.U., flatlined. And yesterday, just hours before Brewer stepped to the podium, Major League Baseball, invoking the memory of Jackie Robinson, did a solemn dance on the corpse.
So Brewer’s veto was no surprise. What was a surprise was the powerful, profoundly un-weaselly nature of her statement. Here it is, interspersed with my comments:

Good evening, and thank you all for joining me here this evening. I’m here to announce a decision on Senate Bill 1062.

As with every proposal that reaches my desk, I give great concern and careful evaluation and deliberate consideration, and especially to Senate Bill 1062. I call them like I see them, despite the cheers or boos from the crowd.

I took the necessary time to make the right decision. I met or spoke with my attorneys, lawmakers, and citizens supporting and opposing this legislation. I listened and asked questions. As governor, I have protected religious freedom when there is a specific and present concern that exists in our state.Sounds an awful lot like she doesn’t think any such concern exists, doesn’t it?
And I have the record to prove it.

My agenda is to sign into law legislation that advances Arizona.Guess what’s not on my agenda and doesn’t advance Arizona?
When I addressed the legislature earlier this year, I made my priorities for this session abundantly clear. Among them are passing a responsible budget that continues Arizona’s economic comeback. From C.E.O.s to entrepreneurs to business surveys, Arizona ranks as one of the best states to grow or start a business. Additionally, our immediate challenge is fixing a broken child-protection system.

Nice. One red item, one blue one.

Instead, this is the first policy bill to cross my desk.

Here’s where she really picks up steam. This line drips with disgust, disdain, and contempt.

Senate Bill 1062 does not address a specific or present concern related to religious liberty in Arizona. I have not heard one example in Arizona where a business owner’s religious liberty has been violated.

One of the week’s big Rachel Maddow/Anderson Cooper talking points.
The bill was broadly worded—and could result in unintended and negative consequences.
After weighing all the arguments I have vetoed Senate Bill 1062 moments ago.

Oh, boy. Here comes the nut—or non-nut—graf.

To the supporters of this legislation, I want you to know that I understand that long-held norms about marriage and family are being challenged as never before. Our society is undergoing many dramatic changes.

These are indisputable points, stated neutrally at worst. Indeed, to my ear, she sounds more sympathetic than not to the new dispensation. The norms are being “challenged,” a good thing, not “undermined,” a bad thing. The changes are “dramatic,” an adjective with a positive valence. What’s changing is “society,” which implies an organic, bottom-up evolution, not some unnatural deformation imposed by activist judges and the gay-friendly liberal media. And note what she doesn’t say. She doesn’t say what I’d expected her to, which would have been something like, “To the supporters of this legislation, I want you to know that I remain opposed to same-sex marriage. I believe that marriage is between a man and a woman. Those are my personal convictions. But my obligations as governor are different. It has become clear that this bill, for all its good intentions, would inflict severe costs on the economy of our state. I cannot in good conscience demand that the people of Arizona pay those costs,” blah, blah, blah.

However, I sincerely believe that Senate Bill 1062 has the potential to create more problems than it purports to solve.

“Purports” implies that the bill’s sponsors acted in bad faith, which, of course, many of them did. But I didn’t expect her to acknowledge it.

It could divide Arizona in ways we cannot even imagine, and no one would ever want.Religious liberty is a core American and Arizona value.

She has already said that religious liberty is not under threat.

So is nondiscrimination.

Wow. She’s saying that discrimination is at the very heart of the bill.

Going forward, let’s turn the ugliness of the debate over Senate Bill 1062 into a renewed search for greater respect and understanding among all Arizonans and Americans.

It’s not really “the debate” that she’s calling ugly. The ugliness is the bill, without which there wouldn’t be a debate. And what is respect and understanding if not tolerance and acceptance?

Speaking of ugliness, don’t get me wrong: Jan Brewer’s governorship has not exactly been a thing of beauty. She abolished state-administered health insurance for children whose families weren’t quite poor enough for Medicaid. She has been unbelievably cruel in her treatment of undocumented immigrants. And before she was against discrimination she was for it, supporting ballot propositions banning not just marriage equality but civil unions, too.

But it was a damn good speech—unequivocal, ungrudging, and stern. That it was delivered by a Republican governor in a Republican state—and delivered with every sign of sincerity, even passion—is simply the latest astonishment in an astonishing American revolution. The change is, as Governor Brewer says, dramatic. It is tectonic. It is unstoppable. In an otherwise foreboding political landscape, it’s a blazing sunrise.

I wish some folks would actually READ the Dang BILL, and LOOK at EXACTLY what the Wording Change, in the amended Statute would have BEEN, BEFORE they publish all those BS Rants, that the MSM News Outlets have been SPREADING, like Cow Crap.......... I bet there are less than 6 Monkeys that have even considered READING the BILL and the Statute as it would have Been AMENDED.....

Bruce in alaska (BTPost) An Atheist will never be able to say, "I TOLD YOU SO"!! ....

I wish some folks would actually READ the Dang BILL, and LOOK at EXACTLY what the Wording Change, in the amended Statute would have BEEN, BEFORE they publish all those BS Rants, that the MSM News Outlets have been SPREADING, like Cow Crap.......... I bet there are less than 6 Monkeys that have even considered READING the BILL and the Statute as it would have Been AMENDED.....

Click to expand...

It is the reason why I enclosed a link to the vetoed legislation.

Rules are for the guidance of the wise, and the blind obedience of fools. - unsourced

To deny your oppressor's, or your own humanity is to descend into barbarism. - V. Chelloveck

Survival is a battle for the mind...mainly one's own. - V. Chelloveck

A beautiful idea founded on faulty reasoning is like a turd wrapped in gold foil, tinsel and glitter. Neither are wholesome if swollowed whole! - V. Chelloveck

What is a religion, but a cult with a larger following and a veneer of respectability. - V.C.

Agree or disagree with the bill, this smells of backtracking due to monetary pressure. Not a decision based on the issue of Right or wrong. Me, myself and I, see the original case against the florist as part of an agenda, not a matter of discrimination. Seems to be a war against the Christian religion and those who support it. TPTB would never ask, nay, force a Muslim chef to make me a pulled pork sandwich with a side of deep fried bacon. If you do not like the service of a certain business, you and your money need to GO THE F____ SOME WHERE ELSE. Not go whining to the local authorities because your panties are in the proverbial wad. We are so screwed as a nation.

Not wanting to beat this thread to death, but the Law Arizona just tried to pass is the exact same law that the Federal Government passed and was signed into law by President Clinton in 1993. It was and still is called the Religious Freedom Restoration Act. The Liberals and the Mainstream media had no problems with it then or now. So what is suddenly wrong with it now that a conservative state government wants to make it a state law?

For those who fight for it, freedom has a flavor the protected will never know!

"We sleep soundly in our beds because rough men stand ready in the night to visit violence on those who would do us harm." Winston Churchill

Well, actually it IS State Law in Aridzonia at this very Moment..... What the Bill was attempting to do, is CLAIFY the Existing Statute, by adding some language, that actually in ONE Case, would make it harder for Businesses, to claim Relief, from such a Law Suit. Go READ the Bill and then the State Statute as it is Today, and then decide, if the MSM, and the GALA Bunch, have a Leg to Stand On, or are just plain LYING for Political Purposes. Just like the Imperial President Himself..... You tell a Lie, Long, and Loud, enough, the Sheeple will believe IT, and condiem Folks based on the LIE..... and not care that they were Lied to.... Until it hits them PERSONALLY in the PocketBook.....(think ObamaCare) and then can't believer that the .GOV would do that to them.....

Bruce in alaska (BTPost) An Atheist will never be able to say, "I TOLD YOU SO"!! ....

Actually, I would have like the law better if there was language allowing business owners to refuse service to someone because you were sick of their religious proselytizing...sort of the flip side of having "religious objections" to someone's lifestyle.

Actually, I would have like the law better if there was language allowing business owners to refuse service to someone because you were sick of their religious proselytizing...sort of the flip side of having "religious objections" to someone's lifestyle.

Click to expand...

A business owner has the right to expel someone proselytizing on their property. Well let me qualify that. They could expel a Christian but probably not a Muslim. We've seen in a few cases now courts forcing businesses to go against their religious beliefs. Here is the rub for me. I have a friend who owns a parts store, if he sells a part to a gay man he isn't being asked to participate in anything. If I own a catering service and am forced to cater a gay wedding that is a totally different animal and should not be.

Not wanting to beat this thread to death, but the Law Arizona just tried to pass is the exact same law that the Federal Government passed and was signed into law by President Clinton in 1993. It was and still is called the Religious Freedom Restoration Act. The Liberals and the Mainstream media had no problems with it then or now. So what is suddenly wrong with it now that a conservative state government wants to make it a state law?

Click to expand...

In 1997, the Supreme Court had a problem with the law, and it was held unconstitutional as applied to the states.

Service or Sale... What is the difference.... I choose to SELL, or Not Sell, to Service, or NOT Service, ON MY Terms, as a Business Owner, Period. I have a sign on my door:

and the ShotGun, lives on Pegs, Just above, and Inside, that Door..... .....

Where most folks get themselves into trouble... Is when they try and Explain, or Justify,
Their Actions. I feel NO NEED to Explain, or Justify, Anything to ANY Potential Customer.
If they do not like the way I do Business, "Don't let the Door, Hit you in the A$$, on your
Way Out." Just the way I am, YMMV.....

Bruce in alaska (BTPost) An Atheist will never be able to say, "I TOLD YOU SO"!! ....

They seem very different to me but maybe we should be clear - I said you can't force a business to sell you something they don't have.

Click to expand...

So, You are suggesting, that one can Force a Business to provide a Service, that they May, or MAY NOT, be able, or willing, to provide?
Sonny, That is Totally Illogical.... It doesn't matter if it is a Thing, or a Service, to Me they are the same, and I, as a Business Owner, DECIDE who I will do Business with, and WHO I will NOT do Business With, at MY Discretion, and certainly NOT at a Potential Customers Discretion. You do not like ME, or My way of doing Business. Fine, Then Take a Hike, and take your Business, Elsewhere. That is your ONLY Right, in my Shop. I will NEVER Justify, my Business Practices to ANYONE, who May, or May NOT, be a Potential Customer... ...... YMMV.....

Bruce in alaska (BTPost) An Atheist will never be able to say, "I TOLD YOU SO"!! ....